DOCSLIB.ORG

Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits Further Analysis on the Mystery of the Surveyor III Dust Deposits l l 3 Philip Metzger , Paul Hintze , Steven Trigwele, John Lane 1 Granular Mechanic and Regolith Operations Lab, NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 2 Applied Technology, Siera Lobo-ESC, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 3 Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations, Easi-ESC, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 ABSTRACT The Apollo 12 lunar module (LM) landing near the Surveyor 1lI spacecraft at the end of 1969 has remained the primary experimental verification of the predicted physics of plume ejecta effects from a rocket engine interacting with the surface of the moon. This was made possible by the return of the Surveyor 1lI camera housing by the Apollo 12 astronauts, allowing detailed analysis of the composition of dust deposited by the Apollo 12 LM plume. It was soon realized after the initial analysis of the camera housing that the LM plume tended to remove more dust than it had deposited. In the present study, coupons from the camera housing were reexamined by a KSC research team using SEMIEDS and XPS analysis. In addition, plume effects recorded in landing videos from each Apollo mission have been studied for possible clues. Several likely scenarios are proposed to explain the Surveyor III dust observations. These include electrostatic attraction of the dust to the surface of the Surveyor as a result of electrostatic charging of the jet gas exiting the engine nozzle during descent; dust blown by the Apollo 12 LM fly-by while on its descent trajectory; dust ejected from the lunar surface due to gas forced into the soil by the Surveyor 1lI rocket nozzle, based on Darcy's law; and mechanical movement of dust during the Surveyor landing. Even though an absolute answer is not possible based on available data and theory, various computational models are employed to estimate the feasibility of each of these proposed mechanisms. Scenarios are then discussed which combine multiple mechanisms to produce results consistent with observations. BACKGROUND In 1967, an unmanned robotic landing device known as Surveyor III, lifted off from thefor Earth on April 17 and landed on the moon on April 20. The location ofthe Surveyor III landing was at the Mare Cognitum portion of the Oceanus Procellarum (30 01' 41.43S" 23° 27' 29.55"W). Surveyor III transmitted 6,315 photographic images back to the Earth. The landing of the Surveyor III was far from smooth. According to Wikipedia: As Surveyor III was landing (in a crater, as it turned out), highly reflective rocks confused the spacecraft's lunar descent radar. The engines failed to cut offat 14 feet (4.3 meters) in altitude as calledfor in the mission plans, and this delay caused the lander to bounce on the lunar surface twice. Its first bounce reached the altitude of about 35 feet (10 meters). The second bounce reached a height ofabout 11 feet (three meters). On the third impact with the surface - from the initial altitude ofthree meters, and velocity ofzero, which was be/ow the planned altitude of 14 feet (4.3 meters), and very Figure 1: Astronaut Bean examining slowly descending -Surveyor III settled down to a soft Surveyor III. Note that the Apollo 12 LM landing as intended. is in the background. 1 For over 2 years, Surveyor III simply resided on the surface being exposed to the ravages of space. However, on November 14, 1969, Apollo 12 launched from the Earth (despite being struck twice by lightning during take-off) and landed on the moon on November 19, 1969 at Oceanus ProcellarumlMare Cognitium (Ocean of StormslKnown Sea) at coordinates 3°00'45"S 23°25'18"W or 3.012389°S 23.421569°W. The Lunar Module (LM) of the Apollo 12 named Intrepid purposely landed 155 m to the west from Surveyor III. Apollo 12 astronauts Charles "Pete" Conrad (Commander) and Alan L. Bean (LM Pilot) were able to examine Surveyor III (as shown in Figure 2) and bring parts back to the Earth. It is interesting to note that the seismometers the astronauts had left on the lunar surface registered the vibrations from the LM lift-off for more than an hour. The relative landing sites of the Apollo 12 LM and Surveyor III are shown in Figure 2. The astronauts visited the Surveyor IlIon their second excursion. Lunar samples were taken throughout the excursions totaling a combined weight of 34 kg of rocks, soil, and core samples (taken down to 40 em below the surface regolith). A chemical analysis of most of the samples can be found on the Lunar and Planetary Institute website (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missi ons/apollo/apollo_12/samples). Figure 2: Landing sites of Intrepid and Surveyor III. Samples taken near the LM and others taken near to Surveyor III have been tabulated in Appendix A. The goal is to observe if the elemental analysis from XPS and SEMlEDX done in the present study correlates with soil/rocks either near the LM site or near the Surveyor III site. LU AR SURVEYOR III SAMPLES The Surveyor III parts brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 are currently stored at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Lunar Sample Curation (http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar /index.cfrn), and information on the chemical analyses is found at the Lunar and Planetary Institute (http://www.lpi.usra.edu). Several of the parts were requested and sent to KSC for analysis in the present study (see and Figures 3 and 4). Those parts are summarized in Table 1. 2 I~ 11 Figure 3: The camera module showing the bottom cutout. I Figure 4: Surveyor III camera on the mOOD. Table 1. Surveyor III Parts Under Investigation. Type ofSample Part Designation Comments Sample from the camera JPL#1037 bottom. JPL #2048 Flat side ofcamera. Sample from camera pointing JPL #2049 Cutouts from the Surveyor away from the Apollo 12 LM. Sample from camera pointing III Camera JPL #2050 (JSC #3160026) towards the Apollo 12 LM. Sample from camera pointing JPL #2051 (JSC #3160027) towards the Apollo 12 LM. Sample from camera pointing JPL #2052 away from the Apollo 12 LM. Acetate Tape Samples of 327082 052 the Regolith Material (collected from underneath 327 083 053 the camera clamp) Section of Cylindrical Rod Sample from each end (strut for the radar) PARTICLE MODELING AND SIMULATION Shear Stress Simulations ofLM Engine Plume Flyby Starting with a Fluent CFD simulation of the Apollo LM engine in a lunar-like environment (background pressure is artificially set to a small non-zero value in order to achieve 3 convergence), three gas parameters are computed for every point in a 2D non-uniform spatial grid: gas density fi...k), gas temperature T(k), and gas velocity v(k). Each CFD simulation and computed gas parameter output set corresponds to a specific engine height h above the lunar surface. The CFD simulation generates gas parameter data at specific spatial points corresponding to the x-y coordinates contained in the grid point array, r(k). Note that for the Fluent CFD cases considered in this report, vertical positions are described by the coordinate x and horizontal positions are described by the coordinate y. Since the CFD generation of spatial points is based on algorithms which are used to minimize error in partial differential equations describing the laws of fluid mechanics, the grid points for all practical purposes are randomly distributed. Therefore, finding a specific point nearest a field point x-y and its nearest neighbors, involves searching'the entire r(k) array for k = 1... N. To compute the shear stress from the CFD output, the grid data is resampled along the lunar surface boundary at rmn = (mtu, n~y) for m = 0, 1, 2 and n = 0... Nx . The shear stress is defined by: av T == /l ---.1::.ax (1) where fl is the dynamic viscosity of the gas, vy is the horizontal component of the gas velocity along the horizontal surface boundary, and x is the distance above the surface. The gas dynamic viscosity is a function of temperature and can be computed by Sutherland's formula approximation: ~ + C (T)3/2 (2) /l(T) == /lo ; + C To where the parameters flo, C, and To are dependent on the gas composition. A discrete approximation to the shear stress of Equation (1) can be computed usmg the resampled CFD output: vY2n -vYOn T ==Iln' , (3) n 2L1x where _ To + C (T1,n)3/2 (4) /In /lo T C ~ = 1,n + 0 An equivalent shear velocity (sometimes referred to as saltation velocity) can be computed from Equation (3) and the resampled gas density: 1/2 Tn (5) Un= ­ () P1,n SIMULATION RESULTS Shear stress along the surface has been computed for the five cases generated by Fluent CFD: h = 5, 10, and 20 [ft] and h = 25 and 45[m). The shear stress is computed and plotted for these 4 .-------------------~----------------------------------- five cases in Figure 16. The shear stress in this figure was generated with & = 0.001 [m] in Equation (3). Shear Stress Using Sutherland's Formula for Dynamic Viscosity 100 10 co !h <-- CFD Domian End ---> If) If) ~ :;; Q> -'= (f) 0.1 - Cl (h =20ft) - C7(h= 10ft) 0.01 - C2(h =5ft) - LM Fly-by (h = 25 m) - LM Fly-by (h = 45 m) 0.001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Distance from Nozzle [m) Figure 5: Shear stress along the x = Ax surface for five cases generated by Fluent CFD: h = 5, 10, 20, 25, and 451ft). Threshold Shear Stress Velocity Starting with the approach ofSagan (1990), the threshold shear stress velocity is: (5) where, (6) and, A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Warren and Taylor-2014-In Tog-The Moon-'Author's Personal Copy'.Pdf
    This article was originally published in Treatise on Geochemistry, Second Edition published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non- commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial Warren P.H., and Taylor G.J. (2014) The Moon. In: Holland H.D. and Turekian K.K. (eds.) Treatise on Geochemistry, Second Edition, vol. 2, pp. 213-250. Oxford: Elsevier. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Author's personal copy 2.9 The Moon PH Warren, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA GJ Taylor, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI, USA ã 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This article is a revision of the previous edition article by P. H. Warren, volume 1, pp. 559–599, © 2003, Elsevier Ltd. 2.9.1 Introduction: The Lunar Context 213 2.9.2 The Lunar Geochemical Database 214 2.9.2.1 Artificially Acquired Samples 214 2.9.2.2 Lunar Meteorites 214 2.9.2.3 Remote-Sensing Data 215 2.9.3 Mare Volcanism
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Spectral Properties of Apollo 12 Landing Site Yann Chemin1, Ian Crawford2, Peter Grindrod2, and Louise Alexander2
    Assessment of spectral properties of Apollo 12 landing site Yann Chemin1, Ian Crawford2, Peter Grindrod2, and Louise Alexander2 1Student, Birkbeck Colllege, University of London 2Birkbeck Colllege, University of London Corresponding author: Yann Chemin1 Email address: [email protected] ABSTRACT The geology and mineralogy of the Apollo 12 landing site has been the subject of recent studies that this research attempts to complement from a remote sensing point of view using the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) sensor data, onboard the Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter. It is a higher spatial-spectral resolution sensor than the Clementine UVVis sensor and gives the opportunity to study the lunar surface with a comparatively more detailed spectral resolution. We used ISIS and GRASS GIS to study the M3 data. The M3 signatures are showing a monotonic featureless increment, with very low reflectance, suggesting a mature regolith. The regolith maturity is splitting the landing site in a younger Northwest and older Southeast. The mineral identification using the lunar sample spectra from within the Relab database found some similarity to a basaltic rock/glass mix. The spectrum features of clinopyroxene have been found in the Copernican rays and at the landing site. Lateral mixing increases FeO content away from the central part of the ray. The presence of clinopyroxene in the pigeonite basalt in the stratigraphy of the landing site brings forth some complexity in differentiating the Copernican ray’s clinopyroxene from the local source, as the spectra are twins but for their vertical shift in reflectance, reducing away from the central part of the ray. Spatial variations in mineralogy were not found mostly because of the pixel size compared to the landing site area.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Surveyor III Crater Large-Scale Maps May Be Produced from Lunar Oribiter Photographs
    FIG. 1. The Surveyor I II Crater. CHARLES W. SHULL t LYNN A. SCHENK U. S. Army TOPOCOM Washington, D. C.20315 Mapping the Surveyor III Crater large-scale maps may be produced from lunar Oribiter photographs (Abstract on next page) INRODUCTlON Because of the inclination of the camera, lunar features were viewed more clearly than URVEYOR III spacecraft was launched Son April 17, 1967 toward the moon on a would have been possible on flat terrain. mission to explore possible Apollo landing This crater, then, became an object of in­ sites. On April 19 the Surveyor landed on the tense interest to the scientific community, moon's Ocean of Storms and almost imme­ especially to astrogeologists who had the diately began transmitting television pictures unique opportunity of observing high quality back to Earth. When the lunar day ended pictures of the interior of a lunar crater for on May 3, over 6,300 photographs had been the first time. Because of this unusual characteristic, the received from Surveyor III by the Jet Pro­ pulsion Laboratory.* ational Aeronautics and Space Administra­ vVhen the spacecraft landed, it came to tion (NASA) requested that the Department of Defense prepare two maps of the crater rest on the inside slope of crater giving it a 12.40 tilt from the local vertical (Figure 1). and surrounding areas. The request was for a photo mosaic at 1 :2,000 scale with 10-meter t Presented at the Annual Convention of the contours and a shaded relief map with con­ American Society of Photogrammetry in Washing­ tours at the smallest interval possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on Moon in Transition: Apollo 14, Kreep, and Evolved Lunar Rocks
    WORKSHOP ON MOON IN TRANSITION: APOLLO 14, KREEP, AND EVOLVED LUNAR ROCKS (NASA-CR-I"'-- N90-I_02o rRAN31TION: APJLLN l_p KRFEP, ANu _VOLVFD LUNAR ROCKS (Lunar and Pl_net3ry !nst.) I_7 p C_CL O3B Unclas G3/91 0253133 LPI Technical Report Number 89-03 UNAR AND PLANETARY INSTITUTE 3303 NASA ROAD 1 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77058-4399 7 WORKSHOP ON MOON IN TRANSITION: APOLLO 14, KREEP, AND EVOLVED LUNAR ROCKS Edited by G. J. Taylor and P. H. Warren Sponsored by Lunar and Planetary Institute NASA Johnson Space Center November 14-16, 1988 Houston, Texas Lunar and Planetary Institute 330 ?_NASA Road 1 Houston, Texas 77058-4399 LPI Technical Report Number 89-03 Compiled in 1989 by the LUNAR AND PLANETARY INSTITUTE The Institute is operated by Universities Space Research Association under Contract NASW-4066 with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Material in this document may be copied without restraint for Library, abstract service, educational, or personal research purposes; however, republication of any portion requires the written permission of the authors as well as appropriate acknowledgment of this publication. This report may be cited as: Taylor G. J. and Warren PI H., eds. (1989) Workshop on Moon in Transition: Apo{l_ 14 KREEP, and Evolved Lunar Rocks. [PI Tech. Rpt. 89-03. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston. 156 pp. Papers in this report may be cited as: Author A. A. (1989) Title of paper. In W_nkshop on Moon in Transition: Ap_llo 14, KREEP, and Evolved Lunar Rocks (G. J. Taylor and P. H. Warren, eds.), pp. xx-yy. LPI Tech. Rpt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moon After Apollo
    ICARUS 25, 495-537 (1975) The Moon after Apollo PAROUK EL-BAZ National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.G- 20560 Received September 17, 1974 The Apollo missions have gradually increased our knowledge of the Moon's chemistry, age, and mode of formation of its surface features and materials. Apollo 11 and 12 landings proved that mare materials are volcanic rocks that were derived from deep-seated basaltic melts about 3.7 and 3.2 billion years ago, respec- tively. Later missions provided additional information on lunar mare basalts as well as the older, anorthositic, highland rocks. Data on the chemical make-up of returned samples were extended to larger areas of the Moon by orbiting geo- chemical experiments. These have also mapped inhomogeneities in lunar surface chemistry, including radioactive anomalies on both the near and far sides. Lunar samples and photographs indicate that the moon is a well-preserved museum of ancient impact scars. The crust of the Moon, which was formed about 4.6 billion years ago, was subjected to intensive metamorphism by large impacts. Although bombardment continues to the present day, the rate and size of impact- ing bodies were much greater in the first 0.7 billion years of the Moon's history. The last of the large, circular, multiringed basins occurred about 3.9 billion years ago. These basins, many of which show positive gravity anomalies (mascons), were flooded by volcanic basalts during a period of at least 600 million years. In addition to filling the circular basins, more so on the near side than on the far side, the basalts also covered lowlands and circum-basin troughs.
    [Show full text]
  • Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII (2001) 1815.Pdf
    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXII (2001) 1815.pdf NEW AGE DETERMINATIONS OF LUNAR MARE BASALTS IN MARE COGNITUM, MARE NUBIUM, OCEANUS PROCELLARUM, AND OTHER NEARSIDE MARE H. Hiesinger1, J. W. Head III1, U. Wolf2, G. Neukum2 1 Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, [email protected] 2 DLR-Inst. of Planetary Exploration, Rutherfordstr. 2, 12489 Berlin/Germany Introduction see a second small peak in volcanic activity at ~2-2.2 Lunar mare basalts cover about 17% of the lunar b.y. surface [1]. A significant portion of lunar mare basalts are exposed within Oceanus Procellarum for which Oceanus Procellarum, Mare Cognitum, Mare Nubium absolute radiometric age data are still lacking. Here we (Binned Ages of Mare Basalts) present age data that are based on remote sensing 20 techniques, that is, crater counts. We performed new crater size-frequency distribution measurements for spectrally homogeneous basalt units in Mare Cogni- 15 tum, Mare Nubium, and Oceanus Procellarum. The investigated area was previously mapped by Whitford- Stark and Head [2] who, based on morphology and 10 spectral characteristics, defined 21 distinctive basalt Frequency types in this part of the lunar nearside. Based on a high-resolution Clementine color ratio composite (e.g., 5 750-400/750+400 ratio as red, 750/990 ratio as green, and 400/750 ratio as blue), we remapped the distribu- 0 tion of distinctive basalts and found that their map well 1.1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 discriminates the major basalt types. However, based Age [b.y.; bins of 100 m.y.] on the new high-resolution color data several of their units can be further subdivided into spectrally different Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-21-306, Nasa
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees May 2021 NASA Assessments of Major Projects GAO-21-306 May 2021 NASA Assessments of Major Projects Highlights of GAO-21-306, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found This report provides a snapshot of how The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) portfolio of major well NASA is planning and executing projects in the development stage of the acquisition process continues to its major projects, which are those with experience cost increases and schedule delays. This marks the fifth year in a row costs of over $250 million. NASA plans that cumulative cost and schedule performance deteriorated (see figure). The to invest at least $69 billion in its major cumulative cost growth is currently $9.6 billion, driven by nine projects; however, projects to continue exploring Earth $7.1 billion of this cost growth stems from two projects—the James Webb Space and the solar system. Telescope and the Space Launch System. These two projects account for about Congressional conferees included a half of the cumulative schedule delays. The portfolio also continues to grow, with provision for GAO to prepare status more projects expected to reach development in the next year. reports on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects, and activities. This Cumulative Cost and Schedule Performance for NASA’s Major Projects in Development is GAO’s 13th annual assessment. This report assesses (1) the cost and schedule performance of NASA’s major projects, including the effects of COVID-19; and (2) the development and maturity of technologies and progress in achieving design stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Over the Moon: a View from Orbit (Nasa Sp-362)
    chl APOLLO OVER THE MOON: A VIEW FROM ORBIT (NASA SP-362) Chapter 1 - Introduction Harold Masursky, Farouk El-Baz, Frederick J. Doyle, and Leon J. Kosofsky [For a high resolution picture- click here] Objectives [1] Photography of the lunar surface was considered an important goal of the Apollo program by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The important objectives of Apollo photography were (1) to gather data pertaining to the topography and specific landmarks along the approach paths to the early Apollo landing sites; (2) to obtain high-resolution photographs of the landing sites and surrounding areas to plan lunar surface exploration, and to provide a basis for extrapolating the concentrated observations at the landing sites to nearby areas; and (3) to obtain photographs suitable for regional studies of the lunar geologic environment and the processes that act upon it. Through study of the photographs and all other arrays of information gathered by the Apollo and earlier lunar programs, we may develop an understanding of the evolution of the lunar crust. In this introductory chapter we describe how the Apollo photographic systems were selected and used; how the photographic mission plans were formulated and conducted; how part of the great mass of data is being analyzed and published; and, finally, we describe some of the scientific results. Historically most lunar atlases have used photointerpretive techniques to discuss the possible origins of the Moon's crust and its surface features. The ideas presented in this volume also rely on photointerpretation. However, many ideas are substantiated or expanded by information obtained from the huge arrays of supporting data gathered by Earth-based and orbital sensors, from experiments deployed on the lunar surface, and from studies made of the returned samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveyor 1 Space- Craft on June 2, 1966 As Seen by the Narrow Angle Camera of the Lunar Re- Connaissance Orbiter Taken on July 17, 2009 (Also See Fig
    i “Project Surveyor, in particular, removed any doubt that it was possible for Americans to land on the Moon and explore its surface.” — Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 Scientist-Astronaut ii Frontispiece: Landing site of the Surveyor 1 space- craft on June 2, 1966 as seen by the narrow angle camera of the Lunar Re- connaissance Orbiter taken on July 17, 2009 (also see Fig. 13). The white square in the upper photo outlines the area of the enlarged view below. The spacecraft is ca. 3.3 m tall and is casting a 15 m shadow to the East. (NASA/LROC/ ASU/GSFC photos) iii iv Surveyor I: America’s First Moon Landing by William F. Mellberg v © 2014, 2015 William F. Mellberg vi About the author: William Mellberg was a marketing and public relations representative with Fokker Aircraft. He is also an aerospace historian, having published many articles on both the development of airplanes and space vehicles in various magazines. He is the author of Famous Airliners and Moon Missions. He also serves as co-Editor of Harrison H. Schmitt’s website: http://americasuncommonsense.com Acknowledgments: The support and recollections of Frank Mellberg, Harrison Schmitt, Justin Rennilson, Alexander Gurshstein, Paul Spudis, Ronald Wells, Colin Mackellar and Dwight Steven- Boniecki is gratefully acknowledged. vii Surveyor I: America’s First Moon Landing by William F. Mellberg A Journey of 250,000 Miles . December 14, 2013. China’s Chang’e 3 spacecraft successfully touched down on the Moon at 1311 GMT (2111 Beijing Time). The landing site was in Mare Imbrium, the Sea of Rains, about 25 miles (40 km) south of the small crater, Laplace F, and roughly 100 miles (160 km) east of its original target in Sinus Iridum, the Bay of Rainbows.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Xpedition Is the Product of Purdue University‟S Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering Department Senior Spacecraft Design Class in the Spring of 2009
    92 Project Xpedition Purdue University AAE 450 Spacecraft Design Spring 2009 Contents 1 – FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 – BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 – WHAT‟S IN THIS REPORT? .................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................................10 2.4 – ACRONYM LIST .................................................................................................................................12 3 – PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 – DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................14 3.2 – INTERPRETATION OF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................18 3.3 – DESIGN PROCESS ..............................................................................................................................19 3.4 – RISK
    [Show full text]
  • Surveyor Ill Mission Report Part I
    \ NAT IONAL AERONAUT ICS AND SPAC E ADMIN ISTRATION Technical Report 32-1177 Surveyor Ill Mission Report Part I. Mission Description and Performance JET PROPULSION LAB ORATOR Y CALIFORNIA INS TITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PASAD E NA, CALIFORNIA September 1, 1967 NAT IONAL AERONA UT ICS AND SPAC E AD MINISTRAT ION Technical Report 32-1177 Surveyor Ill Mission Report Part I. Mission Description and Performance Approved for publication by: H. H. Haglund Surveyor Project Manager JET PROPULSION LAB ORA TOR Y CAL I FORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLO GY PASAD E NA, CAL I FORNI A September 1, 1967 TECHNICAL REPORT 32-1 177 Copyright © 7 196 Jet Propulsion laboratory California Institute of Technology Prepared Under Contract No. NAS 7-100 National Aeronautics Space Administration & Preface This three-part document constitutes the Surveyor III Mission Report. It describes the third in a series of unmanned missions designed to soft-land on the moon and return data from the lunar surface. Part I of this report consists of a technical description and an evaluation of engineering results of the systems utilized in the Surveyor III mission. Analysis of the data received from the Surveyor III mission is continuing, and it is expected that additional results will be obtained together with some improvement in accuracy. Part I was compiled using the contributions of many individuals in the major systems which support the Project. Some of the information for this report was obtained from other published documents; a list of these documents is con­ tained in a bibliography. Part II of this report presents the scientific data derived from the mission and the results of scientific analyses which have been conducted.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Research Online Oro.Open.Ac.Uk
    Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits Journal Item How to cite: Bickel, V. T.; Honniball, C. I.; Martinez, S. N.; Rogaski, A.; Sargeant, Hannah; Bell, S. K.; Czaplinski, E. C.; Farrant, B. E.; Harrington, E. M.; Tolometti, G. D. and Kring, D. A. (2019). Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124(5) pp. 1296–1314. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2019 American Geophysical Union https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1029/2018JE005876 Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk RESEARCH ARTICLE Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications 10.1029/2018JE005876 for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits Key Points: V. T. Bickel1,2 , C. I. Honniball3, S. N. Martinez4, A. Rogaski5, H. M. Sargeant6, S. K. Bell7, • Bearing capacity of pyroclastic, 8 7 9 9 10,11 mare, and highland regions is E. C. Czaplinski , B. E. Farrant , E. M. Harrington , G. D. Tolometti , and D. A. Kring calculated based on measurements 1 2 of boulder tracks in orbital images Department Planets & Comets, Max
    [Show full text]